Dems gather enough votes to filibuster Gorsuch confirmation

[TitanTiger 20,510]

5 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

This made me chuckle ... as if 1806 was yesterday!

Again, for me, it's less about being a constitutional purist or "not getting my way" and more about the radicalization of the Senate to the extremes positions of both parties.  Something I do think is happening.

I'm just pointing out that you can't appeal to Founders' intent when the rule change that made the filibuster possible didn't exist in the Constitution originally and didn't come about until 30 years later.

[AuburnNTexas 7,171]

1 hour ago, RunInRed said:

This made me chuckle ... as if 1806 was yesterday!

Again, for me, it's less about being a constitutional purist or "not getting my way" and more about the radicalization of the Senate to the extremes positions of both parties.  Something I do think is happening.

I tend to agree with you. I preferred the Senate having filibusters but avoiding the use of them on things as important as Supreme Court nominees. I think the Republicans were wrong in not at least giving Garland a vote and if they had they would have been wrong in voting no for him. I think many years ago when the Democrats Borked Bork they were wrong. I think the Democrats were wrong in filibustering Gorusch.  Obviously any candidate a Republican President picks would not be universally like by the Democrats just as any candidate a Democratic President picks would not be universally liked by the Republicans. The standard until just recently was the nominee qualified not if I agreed with their political viewpoint.

Both parties are acting like little kids in a sandbox who did not get their way.  I have always liked the idea of the minority party preventing the majority party of pushing things down their throats. It forces compromise and you can get input from both sides.

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Interesting history of the filibuster
 

Quote

 

... Conventional treatments of the Senate glorify the 19th century as the “golden age” of the Senate: We say that filibusters were reserved for the great issues of the day and that all senators cherished extended debate. That view misreads history in two ways.

First, there were very few filibusters before the Civil War. Why so few filibusters? First, the Senate operated by majority rule; senators expected matters would be brought to a vote. Second, the Senate did not have a lot of work to do in those years, so there was plenty of time to wait out the opposition. Third, voting coalitions in the early Senate were not nearly as polarized as they would later become.

All that changed by mid-century. The Senate grew larger and more polarized along party lines, it had more work to do, and people started paying attention to it. By the 1880s, almost every Congress began to experience at least one bout of obstructionism: for instance, over civil rights, election law, nominations, even appointment of Senate officers—only some of these “the great issues of the day.”

There is a second reason that this was not a golden age: When filibusters did occur, leaders tried to ban them. Senate leaders tried and failed repeatedly over the course of the 19th and early 20th centuries to reinstate the previous question motion. More often than not, senators gave up their quest for reform when they saw that opponents would kill it by filibuster—putting the majority’s other priorities at risk. Unable to reform Senate rules, leaders developed other innovations such as unanimous consent agreements. These seem to have been a fallback option for managing a chamber prone to filibusters.  ... ...

 

 

[RunInRed 16,486]

On 4/7/2017 at 0:59 PM, TitanTiger said:

I'm just pointing out that you can't appeal to Founders' intent when the rule change that made the filibuster possible didn't exist in the Constitution originally and didn't come about until 30 years later.

Ok, so I can appeal to, dare I say, tradition? 

Anyways, whether it's intent or tradition or just my couple of pennies, I still believe the Senate should be the upper legislative body where the hard work of compromise, common sense and "meeting in the middle" rules.  That seems to be slipping away ... hope I'm wrong.

[AURaptor 1,126]

17 minutes ago, RunInRed said:

I still believe the Senate should be the upper legislative body where the hard work of compromise, common sense and "meeting in the middle" rules.  That seems to be slipping away ... hope I'm wrong.

Just like we saw with the nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor ? Oh, the GOP didn't bother w/ denying the President of his choices then. 

My bad 

[auburnphan 6,050]

On 4/9/2017 at 11:43 AM, AURaptor said:

Just like we saw with the nomination of Kagan and Sotomayor ? Oh, the GOP didn't bother w/ denying the President of his choices then. 

My bad 

What does that have to do with the current political landscape?

 

NOTHING

[homersapien 11,439]

Considering they are appointed for life, the filibuster should apply to Supreme Court appointments. If you cannot reach 60 votes for such an appointment, you need a better candidate.

It's a shame it has become politicized to the point of being petty.  Refusing Garland a hearing did a lot of damage.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Considering they are appointed for life, the filibuster should apply to Supreme Court appointments. If you cannot reach 60 votes for such an appointment, you need a better candidate.

It's a shame it has become politicized to the point of being petty.  Refusing Garland a hearing did a lot of damage.

The candidate was fine.  This was simply about payback for scuttling Garland.

[homersapien 11,439]

11 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The candidate was fine.  This was simply about payback for scuttling Garland.

That was my point.  I don't really have a problem with Gorsuch.  Had Garland had at least been given a hearing, I suspect Gorsuch might have passed.

But after McConnell refused to allow a hearing because of Obama,  it was very difficult for Democrats to refuse a filibuster.  It was just too much to swallow.  I felt the same way.

Hopefully Gorsuch will be a good judge, but his affinity for big corporations - a trend that needs to be reversed - and his views on end-of-life options concern me.  Individuals should have the right to end their lives in dignity if the only alternative is a long, drawn out period of physical and financial suffering. 

[WDavE 332]

Then why was there a big push by all big Liberal Democrats to filibuster in 2006 another Republican nominee? Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, Kerry. Oh wait they were the minority then too.

 

I also like the talking point of many that this new appointment upsets the balance of the court. I see it as the court lost a conservative and was replaced by one. Balanced just like it was before....

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,439]

On 4/6/2017 at 2:00 PM, AuburnNTexas said:

So according to you when the Democrats are in charge and do something it is OK. The Democrats were the first one to do the nuclear option but if the Republicans do the same thing it is unprecedented and were screwed.

We may be screwed but it is by both sides.

Now that both sides have not backed down the Democrats filibustered and the Republicans went nuclear on them ala Harry Reid. The shoe was on the other foot and both sides have decided that opposition is more important than working together.

However, Reid's actions to neutralize the filibuster were for some 82(!) lower court positions.  That to me justifies what he did.  How do you justify filibustering 80 canditates??  Not even one was acceptable??

The Republicans were clearly trying to obstruct court appointments simply because Obama was making them.  Such an action begs the question of racism.  Obama is not that liberal, nor were these judges out of the mainstream.

So yeah, both sides have done it, but it is the Republicans who have been most responsible for politicizing it.

[homersapien 11,439]

1 hour ago, WDavE said:

Then why was there a big push by all big Liberal Democrats to filibuster in 2006 another Republican nominee? Kennedy, Clinton, Obama, Kerry. Oh wait they were the minority then too.

 

I also like the talking point of many that this new appointment upsets the balance of the court. I see it as the court lost a conservative and was replaced by one. Balanced just like it was before....

First, the very idea of a "balanced court" shows how politicized the court is.

Secondly, the lack of a filibuster makes it much easier for either side to push through a more "extremist" candidate.